Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733675 9-Mar-2017 13:32

sxz:

tdgeek:

Currently, the taxes paid include expenditure for retirement pensions. Its fine to remove those tax payments and pensions and replace them, but for everyone working at the moment, some of the taxes they have paid include that benefit. They also include medical benefits, but pensions are a tax payment to be received later, whereas many tax payment spends are for today.

No, no no. Labour started doing this in 2001(?) with the super fund. National halted contributions to the super fund. As far as I am aware no one has ever contributed to future retirement apart from those few years Labour brought it in.

I wasnt referring to super. Right now, the Govt pays pensions. So, they are funded from taxes, everybodys taxes

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1733894 9-Mar-2017 18:22

frankv:

AFAICT, you've all swallowed the capitalist/progressive line that in some way we have to earn our retirement.

One of the great promises of automation was that we would get increased leisure time... instead, we're we're being told that our children will have to work for another 2 years. Why?

Because, apparently, we have to pay someone to live. Why do we have to pay? Who gets the benefit of those extra two years of work?

We are being treated as a herd of "human resources", to be worked until we drop.

I'm not sure you quite follow the argument.

Yes, one of the benefits of automation is increased output per head, which translates into greater prosperity. Which, since the start of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, and with a couple of hiccups along the way, has been pretty much what happened. Much as it's fashionable to beat chests about how things are getting worse and have never been so bad, it simply isn't true. The standard of living for a "typical" family now would be seen as almost unimaginably prosperous for a similar family 100 years ago. Most children completing schooling, cars, TVs, fridges, washing machines, overseas travel, supermarkets packed with reasonably priced produce from around the world, more than one set of clothes each, drinkable water piped into your house, flush toilets, pretty medical care if its needed, and 40-50 hour working weeks.

Unfortunately, this means that many more people are living to retirement and into a ripe old age. This is blowing out the pensions bill, as well as medical costs (on average an elderly person costs the health system many times what a middle aged person does). This all threatens to damage the government's finances unless costs are pruned, or those who have not yet retired are willing to pay a much higher tax rate, or some mix of the two.

Raising the pension age is one way to manage costs. There are, obviously, other options - cutting spending elsewhere or raising taxes being the obvious ones.

our children will have to work for another 2 years. Why?

Because they are living much longer, and that is proving expensive.

Why do we have to pay? Who gets the benefit of those extra two years of work?

The country (including retirees), in the sense that it helps keep pension costs manageable, and reduces the need to drastically hike taxes or cut spending elsewhere.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733929 9-Mar-2017 19:53

We could force retirement savings. Starts now. A young adult has to be in a KS type of plan to save for the retirement. Zero Govt input when they retire. Someone aged 40 does the same, and when they retire the Govt pays the pension based on its ownership of the taxes of that person, i.e. age 18 to age 40, 26 years. The person owns their retirement plan from 40 to retirement.

The issue here is what happens if they die at 25, or 55, or 65 or 85? Currently the Govt saves money, that is offset by those that live longer. So that needs to be thought out.

If individuals paid their own way, that helps them to retire earlier, and zero cost to the Govt, and it helps employment, if the grey zone are not taking jobs. User pays seems the most equitable option.

RUKI

1402 posts

Uber Geek

#1733939 9-Mar-2017 20:00

They suggest as an argument that "people live longer in New Zealand" Maybe in the past, before GM food was introduced to NZ.

a) New Zealand attracts immigrants in their 40-ies and they may come from countries where men on average may not even reach 65. My farther died at 63.

b) After migrants have settled in those leaky rental houses in NZ (>15000 leaky houses in Auckland), covered in black mold - I do not believe their life longevity will increase.

c) Cancer rate here is one of the highest in the world.

FYI: The legal retirement age in Russia is 60 years for men and 55 for women. Recent changes made it impossible to transfer Russian Pension abroad.

I would suggest to LOWER pension age for eligible Russians living in New Zealand to 60 years. How about that, just to be fare!

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1734018 9-Mar-2017 21:40

tdgeek:

frankv:

AFAICT, you've all swallowed the capitalist/progressive line that in some way we have to earn our retirement.

One of the great promises of automation was that we would get increased leisure time... instead, we're we're being told that our children will have to work for another 2 years. Why?

Because, apparently, we have to pay someone to live. Why do we have to pay? Who gets the benefit of those extra two years of work?

We are being treated as a herd of "human resources", to be worked until we drop.

Can you clarify middle two paragraphs

Back in the 70s, it was expected that, as automation machines took over work, *everyone* would have more leisure time. That extra leisure time could have taken the form of less work hours per day or per week, or more holidays per year, or earlier retirement. We have seen an increase in annual holidays from 3 to 4 weeks, but really none of the other aspects has improved.

There is an assumption that we need to be more productive so we can compete with other countries, that in some way GDP or some such is a measure of success. Why??? Why can't we "compete" by ensuring that our citizens have the best possible lives? And the best possible doesn't necessarily mean the wealthiest, nor the longest. What is happening in reality is that we are working to further enrichen the wealthy; instead of the benefits being shared across the population, they're being siphoned off by a few.

From my point of view, I enjoy my work, but I work so that I can do what I want in the remainder of my time. There's a trade-off of work-hours vs leisure-hours, and doing more work for less leisure is a bad thing.

On top of that, there's a young unemployed person who would be working if I wasn't; why not give him/her that opportunity?

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1735061 11-Mar-2017 22:00

Geektastic:

The whole blame the baby boomers thing is just a symptom of the modern trend to categorise everyone. The suggestion that the BB acted in some way collectively and maliciously is of course utter tripe: they did precisely what any of those complaining about them would do in the same position.

I disagree. Look at the demographics of the Brexit vote and you'll see that the mindset of each generation differs a lot. NZ used to be a very egalitarian society before the boomers realised they could, and subsequently did, start making hay. See the Unitary Plan related meetings whose attendance is dominated by boomers who boo and hiss at any idea or suggestion that would benefit the majority (i.e housing intensification) and affect their perceived quality of living.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1735074 11-Mar-2017 23:11

I'd be incredibly surprised if KS isn't the only investment for the majority of people (not counting the house they live in).

I think you'll find the majority of people live week to week, raising kids, working long hours, paying bills, and, if they're lucky, paying a mortgage. If not, they're renting and hoping their landlord doesn't make them move.

Not everyone in NZ has money to spare.

I can't imagine your local barista has investments, or retail workers, or road builders, or... I could give hundreds of examples.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

JayADee

2148 posts

Uber Geek

#1735083 12-Mar-2017 06:51

frankv:
tdgeek:

frankv:

AFAICT, you've all swallowed the capitalist/progressive line that in some way we have to earn our retirement.

One of the great promises of automation was that we would get increased leisure time... instead, we're we're being told that our children will have to work for another 2 years. Why?

Because, apparently, we have to pay someone to live. Why do we have to pay? Who gets the benefit of those extra two years of work?

We are being treated as a herd of "human resources", to be worked until we drop.

Can you clarify middle two paragraphs

Back in the 70s, it was expected that, as automation machines took over work, *everyone* would have more leisure time. That extra leisure time could have taken the form of less work hours per day or per week, or more holidays per year, or earlier retirement. We have seen an increase in annual holidays from 3 to 4 weeks, but really none of the other aspects has improved.

There is an assumption that we need to be more productive so we can compete with other countries, that in some way GDP or some such is a measure of success. Why??? Why can't we "compete" by ensuring that our citizens have the best possible lives? And the best possible doesn't necessarily mean the wealthiest, nor the longest. What is happening in reality is that we are working to further enrichen the wealthy; instead of the benefits being shared across the population, they're being siphoned off by a few.

From my point of view, I enjoy my work, but I work so that I can do what I want in the remainder of my time. There's a trade-off of work-hours vs leisure-hours, and doing more work for less leisure is a bad thing.

On top of that, there's a young unemployed person who would be working if I wasn't; why not give him/her that opportunity?

Yeah, get the generations pitted against each other then the politicians can do what their ideology dictates instead of the public deciding what kind of society they really want to live in.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1735103 12-Mar-2017 10:11

RUKI:

They suggest as an argument that "people live longer in New Zealand" Maybe in the past, before GM food was introduced to NZ.

I would suggest to LOWER pension age for eligible Russians living in New Zealand to 60 years. How about that, just to be fare!

There are perfectly good homeopathic remedies for the advers affects of GM food

Be careful what you suggest re different ages for different ethnic groups!

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1735206 12-Mar-2017 12:20

One my frustrations about the Auckland house price explosion and the baby boomers is the revelling in the increase in paper wealth with the screams of protest against a small capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

Congratulations you made some money through fortunate circumstances how about giving some back to the state which pays for the infrastructure and laws which enable the wealth.(and stops your next door neighbor building a 6 story apartment next to you)

If I work extra shifts this weekend, I pay 36%. But my house appreciates and when I sell it's all profit.

I'm not suggesting anything like that much. We could look overseas at various rates

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1735298 12-Mar-2017 14:44

Didnt see this thread. These are my thoughts.

Im tired of pensions not being raised now instead my generation will have to pay for baby boomers retiring and when I am set to retire, its not a question, but I will be made to work longer.

Lastly pensions have to be income tested like the guy who cant work due to disability. That person and his partner cant save for super, yet someone retiring now with a $4m property, $1m in the bank, 2 cars and a boat has no income testing, wtf do they need $300 a week for.

Pensions arent based on your tax over your life time, they are taken from the budget year in year out, you dont EARN a pension by paying taxes. Just like the guy who breaks his back and cant claim a disability benefit doesnt EARN a benefit through his previous taxes.

Anyway this latest from Mr English makes me mad. Not only this, when NZ RE and Economy bursts, where will Mr Key be to answer these lending questions?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/326054/superannuation-your-questions-answered

Stop making us pay so the old Polis and their generation get a free ride for us to pay for.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1735304 12-Mar-2017 14:47

frankv:

Why??? Why can't we "compete" by ensuring that our citizens have the best possible lives? And the best possible doesn't necessarily mean the wealthiest, nor the longest. What is happening in reality is that we are working to further enrichen the wealthy; instead of the benefits being shared across the population, they're being siphoned off by a few.

I agree totally, the problem is communism wont go down in NZ and the old folk retiring wont give back their free education, their free pension, their extreme wealth generated by RE proganda and an idiot government borrowing.

Its every dog for themselves soon. I can NZ going under.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1735305 12-Mar-2017 14:49

We could look overseas at various rates

Yep i just have been, Germany has pretty much flat lined for 20 years and our oh so productive economy has generated RE prices worth 2500% than Germany?

For ... sake when are kiwis going to get their head out of the sand before everyone runs off retiring leaving the rest to work off a near impossible borrowing.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1735310 12-Mar-2017 14:59

House price graphs, chase the link for changing various countries, vs income etc etc

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326391/nz-outpacing-developed-world-in-house-prices-economist

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1735314 12-Mar-2017 15:13

TeaLeaf:
Didnt see this thread. These are my thoughts.

Im tired of pensions not being raised now instead my generation will have to pay for baby boomers retiring and when I am set to retire, its not a question, but I will be made to work longer.

Lastly pensions have to be income tested like the guy who cant work due to disability. That person and his partner cant save for super, yet someone retiring now with a $4m property, $1m in the bank, 2 cars and a boat has no income testing, wtf do they need $300 a week for.

Pensions arent based on your tax over your life time, they are taken from the budget year in year out, you dont EARN a pension by paying taxes. Just like the guy who breaks his back and cant claim a disability benefit doesnt EARN a benefit through his previous taxes.

Anyway this latest from Mr English makes me mad. Not only this, when NZ RE and Economy bursts, where will Mr Key be to answer these lending questions?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/326054/superannuation-your-questions-answered

Stop making us pay so the old Polis and their generation get a free ride for us to pay for.

So you will be happy to reimburse previous generations for the infrastructure, Hospitals, schools etcetera that you used without paying for 20 years?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11